regfootball

Bet they had to ride it hard to hit a mid eight 0-60, Plus some of the competition is a full sec faster to the same mark...... 8 speed in the 2.0 accounts for some manuf cost difference but it's still a bunch more even setting that aside. By early fall there should be a lot of leftover 2.0's on lots with healthy rebates. Am I talking to a wall here? The engine upgrades at other manufacturers are priced about the same or higher and the Malibu comes with some nice features standard that you need to pay more for at Hyundai, Honda, and Toyota. Malibu 2.0T = $28k, Sonata 2.0T = $28k, Accord V6 = $30k, Camry V6 = $32k, Mazda 6 = Not Available, Passat V6 = $36k, Ford SE 2.0T = $27k... The Malibu 2.0T is one of the least expensive engine upgrade options among its peers, so your continued ranting about the cost of the Malibu 2.0T just makes you look silly. And you want GM to price the 2.0T for the same price as the 1.5T just because they're both 4-cylinders? Do you not know how value added pricing works? Another thing you keep forgetting is that Car Play and Android Auto are both standard even in the most base model Malibu which means you effectively can have NAV without having to move up to much more expensive trims. That's a $700 to $2000 "give" from Chevy right there across the lineup. I've used Car Play, and it is superior to a built in NAV in just about every way possible. The maps are always up to date, it uses Siri's voice recognition engine, it gets traffic updates faster, it responds faster... there isn't a built in NAV system out there that can beat it. I assume that once I try Android Auto, which is compatible with Waze, that my feelings on that will be the same. So, yeah, I'd have no problem taking a Malibu 2.0T for $28k when the $28k options at nearly every other manufacturer come with less powerful engines and no NAV systems. Then Chevy should add another 20-30 hp to the base engine or get its accel times up to match others in the class. It doesn't have an mpg advantage, its just in the thick of the pack in that regard.

lawyers and law and lawsuits probably created the need for GM to send paper recalls. even though lots of stuff can be controlled via software on cars, those who think they can just call tech support for everything and have it fixed...there will still be tons of things to break and malfunction that no software patch can fix. People can't be lazy, they have to bring in their car.

Bet they had to ride it hard to hit a mid eight 0-60, Plus some of the competition is a full sec faster to the same mark...... 8 speed in the 2.0 accounts for some manuf cost difference but it's still a bunch more even setting that aside. By early fall there should be a lot of leftover 2.0's on lots with healthy rebates.

coincidence, i just read the Motor Trend and C/D tests. I agree, the 2.0 would be great in the car. I think for everyday folks, something like a 1.75 litre turbo, and about 215hp/240tq making 28 mpg combined would be a nice blend. GM though, they really bend you over if you want the desirable stuff. The 1.5 and 2.0 all have 4 pistons, 16 valves, a turbo, 4 cylinders, but look at the price difference. The EPA forces the mpg issue and forces the whole why we even have a 1.5 to begin with. It's like I said, it really walks the line quite well between just enough power and 'i need more'. Same thing with the current gen Cruze. These little tiny turbos are not relaxed.

wouldn't surprise me, this doesn't look like a .23 shape

http://blog.caranddriver.com/tesla-model-s-catches-fire-at-supercharger-station-in-norway/ crispy fried tesla (no cause given)

nothing here to make one moist. at the same time, nothing changes enough to shock the customer base. The dash is dumpy looking. They could have done better there. agree, on the exterior, we've seen that look before. The CD is impressive.

Well, the younger crowd is not into cars the same way we are.....this offers rides to those who do not want to deal with ownership of a car. Can't blame them with the rising costs of everything..... what will happen is the cost of periodically having access to a car will evolve into costing as much then as it does not to make the car payment etc. and having your own car. They will figure out how to profit more by leasing the service instead of selling the car and take just as much of your money in the process. between EPA mandates NHTSA mandates and the movement afloat to kill car ownership and driving yourself, now you know why there is not much resources put into fun cars anymore. All the R&D is going for other things,

Blu, perhaps you'd prefer a Karl, instead of a spark. I will refrain from saying this is a hot car. http://www.km77.com/fotos/Opel/KARL_2015/Interior.html?photoType=2&limit=99 http://www.km77.com/fotos/Opel/KARL_2015/Exterior.html?division=color&photoType=1&limit=99

no, please.

looks alright. definitely has Volvo character.

NOTES / EDIT: 2.0 and hybrid test drives further down Driven: 2016 Chevrolet Malibu 1LT 1.5, MSRP= 26,790? HIGHS: -RIGHT SIZE interior for the class.....consider the interior space / leg room issues fixed, six footers fit in the back even. Head, leg, hip, shoulders, all the room you need. -Greatly changed center stack no longer is a leg intruder. Room to SPLAY. -NOT A BUNKER. Airy cabin with good views out the front, side, and back -Quiet cabin. Muffles the engine din reasonably well and keeps road and tire noise out, more than you'd expect in this class. -As an example, bumps of any kind do not transmit large 'thunks' into the cabin, even on railroad tracks. -Despite the loss of a bunch of mass, things like the doors still feel hefty and open and close with a nice 'thunk'. -To expand on that, for such little mass, car feels nicely secure, stable, and weighted on the road. -Good weight to the steering, even if its not quick. -There is a complete change in the seating / driving position and ergonomics, and it's a success....dash is not so intrusive either. -For example, the gauges are 'low and away' but the presentation is 100% better, attractive, colorful, crisp, and bright instrumentation -Likewise the radio display. So clear, crisp, colorful and easy to read. And only a few buttons you need. -The climate control too, is all you need for controls, so simple and well done. -Luscious and perfectly placed armrest. A great station to perform your wrist curls for your 44 ounce big gulps in the nicely placed cupholders -The area where the old center stack was, is a part of the console that extends further forward and actually will function well for gloves and devices, etc. -Shifter falls deftly to hand and its perfectly sized. The steering wheel is a revelation as well, including the clever controls on the backside for gauges and things. -Backseat amenities like USB and charger ports are a nice plus. -Even the key fob is a whole lot better than all the recent GM cars -Controls on the door panels are well placed as well, and the mirrors even seem to have a little larger size than some other GM models -Seat cloth is not the natty burlap stuff of late. Its an in-between of the rough burlap and the mouse fur you might find on an Altima. It feels nice to the boot and not cheap. -Interior dash and door top plastics are not incredibly detailed or lush, but I think they stop short of coming off as cheap. Maybe in bright sun they would look cheaper. -I liked the way the trunk was simply trimmed, and it used all its space well. Hardly any usual GM inefficient intrusions at the wheel well or otherwise. -I had thought the cloth dash inserts would look cheap based upon photos, but they do not, they look and feel good, and they soften the dash up a bit where it helps most. -The little engine that can, can if you don't ask a lot of it, and stays muffled in that scenario. -Much less rpm at 70+ mph (t's less than 2,500 rpm) than the current Cruze (which is a bit of a buzzbomb at higher speeds). -This car has a look and feel and drive that is more in line with the buyers of an Altima, Accord, or Camry. -A quiet, comfortable, and highly usable transportation device. LOWS -Not a canyon carver, I don't think anyone expected that, but there isn't any sporting pretense here. -Some engine drone when you lean on it and ask you to move, and then you find out the engine isn't smooth as velvet either. Vibrations...... -The power and torque output really straddles a line between just barely enough and you really got to have more. A 1.8t would have been perfect. -Front seats feel a little insubstantial in materials and structure. Wonder if durability is a concern here for cutting cost and weight. -Lowers of the door (as has been commented on in on line reviews) feel a bit too insubstantial and not very durable. -For some reason, to me, the 'iPod on the dash' is shaped and presented in a such a way as to imagine an iPod coming out of the vjj between legs during child birth. -Car has a nice new shape, but the front end lacks presence, and there is no 'trunk'. Whole car is a little too egg like, and dare i say, dull. -As a matter of discussion, the shape may be a bit too 'un GM like', not enough creases and definition (let's chat about that) SUMMARY I think we've all heard the endless stories about why the 13-15 Malibu was the way it was. And it didn't sell greatly. Still, there are the likes of my good friend who has a '15 Malibu as a company car (and he likes it a lot). At a minimum, you could say the car was 'GM like', even despite its oddities. But also included in that traditional feel was poor interior space (especially the back seat), performance/ ride and drive that wasn't class competitive by many's standards, and style was an issue..it just looked odd to many. Overall, it appeared to be a car that many dismissed without even a second thought, as just not having its stuff together or being 'complete'. We'd been told the 13-15 was a remnant of 'old GM' and its bankruptcy difficulties. Whatever the excuse, it's absolutely clear this new car had attention put to it in every way that far exceeded whatever effort was put into the previous. Little details make a big differences, but it's not just the little things......the complete overhaul with new platform, powertrain, and body allowed Chevy to remake the car into something that can actually compete against the likes of the big sellers......the Altima, Camry, Accord. It's acquired the traits and personalities of some of each of those sorts of competitors, and it's now in position to impress those sorts of buyers. Its interesting what adequate resources and new ideas can do. There aren't any major faults to this vehicle now. No big deal killers, like the 'no back seat'. So too, there is nothing that jumps out as a class leader in anything, my example here is that you won't prefer how this drives or feels compared to a Mazda6. The big deal is that it's at the poker table, and now the car itself won't kill the sale. It should now be up to the marketing staff at Chevy, and its incentives, and the dealer sales experience to prove that they can take this capable car and make sales out of it. The challenge will be to get butts in the seats and DRIVE IT. I sort of see this car wanting to approach the feel of the Altima the most. Well, this car feels better in the ride and drive than the Altima. I think those who debate interiors may go back and forth on that one. But if I were to overall try to put my finger on which car it emulates the most, I would say that one (not knowing how well the improvement on the 16 Altima is). There is still some of that GM feel in the steering and ergonomics and controls so this feels still like a GM car. So it hasn't gone full Asian or anything. One other comment. This car feels about 5 years newer than the new Impala. Certainly feels much more nimble while feeling pretty much as solid. A job well done, I would like to see more power and a smoother powertrain in the LT. I would give the car a solid A if it did not have that issue. A- is still not bad. GM dun good.

22.5 is good mpg for a 4wd v6 in the winter. Ride on, sir.

Ford still has the best three row solution. Look into the Flex, Explorer, and Taurus X. The Rendayvue was such that there really wasnt any cargo room with the third row up, but it did have a good third row. If you get the RDV without the third row, the cargo area was positively cavernous. XL7's (Equinox XL's) without the third row had huge cargo areas also.

Both of our CUVs are AWD, but we live at the very top of a ridge that is the tallest for miles. Out on the open road, I can do fine in a RWD car with snow tires (My Lincoln Continental, my Cadillac CTS, and my Caprice Classic all got snow tires each winter), but getting into and out of my driveway or even up my street on unplowed snow has proven to be too much for a RWD car. That said, I am one of the minority that puts snow tires on my AWD cars also, because as much as I like to go is snow, I also like to stop and steer. I haven't put snow tires on the Encore this year, and it is making me nervous. I'm really close to needing a set of all season tires in about 7k... so if we really get snowed on this winter, the Encore will probably be staying home while the Honda gets to play snowy mountain goat. I'm a snow tire advocate no matter what. I don't quite get to it due to the money factor (and yes you wear out the same amount of tire no matter what). I think most folks don't want to buy extra tires to store in the garage or whatever, i would like separate snows with separate wheels and such, extra ups, that's where some of the expense comes in. Snow tires are a plus but not mandatory with some of the better All Season tires in most areas anymore. Even here in the snow belt with most of the tire companies in town few people use em. The main reason. Simple the cost of tires. Buying tires today is a major expense just for the tires. All these larger sizes and speed ratings most pass on them. Yes some winter tires do wear out faster as you are not going to get 60,000 out of most of them like you will for a well cared for set of All Seasons. Even for me I get tires at cost and it is a major expense. I take off my Aluminum wheels and put on a set of Goodyear Triple Treads. They work great in all weather conditions. But these tires are not even cheap at my cost. Then the additional set of wheels and then the 4 TPM sensors that you now need. There are several annoyances but the bottom line generally is cost as most people do not want to shell out big buck on tires even when they are worn out but to have a second set when generally a good set of all season will also serve their needs they are not going to spend the money. You don't believe that people hate buying tires just look at all the worn out ones on the road. Most people in trouble in the snow are often down to the wear bars and know it. yes, people put off tire purchases, even for the regular all seasons so that's why the mass of the population will never get on snows. part of the tire cost being so much these days, the expensive 19, 20 inch types. SUV tires too, get spendy. It's tough to get out of discount tire for less than 600 bucks on my Cobalt even. I imagine most folks spend at least 800 bucks when putting new tires on. For people that can barely make rent each month, no wonder tires get neglected. I always thought a great plan for maintenance and repair would be to offer an escrow service when you buy a car. Let's say your car payment was 300 bucks (which is a low number these days). You could either create your own savings account for M&R or the dealer could offer an escrow, say 100 bucks a month. Then it banks up. When you get service done, you just tap the escrow. You could buy tires out of your escrow. Of course, that's like anything that it subsidized, it would raise the price of things. Then you would lose pressure to keep tire prices down.

No third row. RDZ did have a third row, and a surprisingly decent one......

two (or three) Vegas, two MT RWD Chevettes and one automatic, one full size RWD pickup, my buick century coupe, two buick electras (one tank like diesel 4 door and a 2 door with NO weight on the back end), and then my Thunderbird (which i had to get snows for and even with that and 200 pounds in the trunk would not get up moderate-heavy inclines in the winter) that was when i decided i had it with RWD and got my first FWD car my 89 SHO. My wife and i were just talking about that last night. That car was great in snow. We got snowed in at a NYE party (can't recall what year, 97 maybe) and got out of the neighborhood we were in before they did significant plowing and the car was a snowmobile. Had one of the first GoodYear performance aqua treads on it. We've only had one AWD vehicle......and it was great from the standpoint of taking off from slippery intersections and keeping straight on crappy roads. I ditched one of the Electras once in winter. Total skate, always fishtailing just like the thunderbird. My Century had the 3.8 motor and wasn't so heavy in front so it did about the best of all the rwd's i had. One of the two Diamantes i had had horrible yokohama tires on it. Did some flat spins in a flat parking lot with it once. Proof how much tires impact the situation too. Whichever of the automakers decides to give the AWD option to their midsize sedans and compete with Subaru will be a winner and gain sales. Some of us appreciate that CUV's are available but still like sedans. I like a CUV for family use but for my day to day driving i like sedans. Just want a large enough and nice enough sedan to be useful. All the automakers chase the hybrid niches in this segment which is a terribly small number of units. It won't be long until the others jump in offer it too. An AWD sedan has better FE than the equivalent CUV. That would help cafe also.

Both of our CUVs are AWD, but we live at the very top of a ridge that is the tallest for miles. Out on the open road, I can do fine in a RWD car with snow tires (My Lincoln Continental, my Cadillac CTS, and my Caprice Classic all got snow tires each winter), but getting into and out of my driveway or even up my street on unplowed snow has proven to be too much for a RWD car. That said, I am one of the minority that puts snow tires on my AWD cars also, because as much as I like to go is snow, I also like to stop and steer. I haven't put snow tires on the Encore this year, and it is making me nervous. I'm really close to needing a set of all season tires in about 7k... so if we really get snowed on this winter, the Encore will probably be staying home while the Honda gets to play snowy mountain goat. I'm a snow tire advocate no matter what. I don't quite get to it due to the money factor (and yes you wear out the same amount of tire no matter what). I think most folks don't want to buy extra tires to store in the garage or whatever, i would like separate snows with separate wheels and such, extra ups, that's where some of the expense comes in.

wait, don't you both have AWD suv's? Just about everyone i know ditched rwd for fwd or awd. so 'learning to drive' would apply right back in the mirror, ? or to anyone who wants AWD? I did my learning in 20 below in one of the most blizzard laden parts of the country. I had driven or had as my vehicle probably at least 10 rear wheel drive vehicles by the time i got my thunderbird at age 25. I know exactly why they suck, so does the market. Humanity evolves, and ditching the rwd is evolving.

Envision does hit the size target. The whole Denali phenomenon is bizarre to me. But they can pull it off so that's ok. I think part of the Denali thing is serving a market that is going under served by cadillac.

but they probably wanted 'more car for their money'.....Fiat prob won't develop a new platform to replace the LX, Chrysler will prob milk it. They prob see it as a dying market, i disagree, but Fiat is too Euro focused to understand the US. Sergio only cares about Jeep obviously. a 300 v6 AWD would be a great buy right now....an excoworker got one and loves it. Cars a bit physically large for my tastes though.

Regal needs to be the sporting Buick. The new LaCrosse gives no vibe other than a big fluffy cruiser. Which is fine, a lot of people like that. My hope is the Regal / Insignia is full Euro flavor. I hope the Verano goes full Astra too.

You will find the Regal will not enjoy the same weight loss in AWD from but it too will have a Turbo 4. You can not like it but your argument holds no water. Losing 300 pounds in a mid size fwd car is not easy to do and run up the cost and lowering the profits. If it were they all would be doing it. If you want AWD just that bad just buy a Subaru. GM will not really miss you. run up the costs and lower the profits....cry me a river. What GM does is merely to jack up the price. For example, look at the insane MSRP's of the new Malibu if you want leather. Or if you want the optional 2.0 motor. Let's compare, a 1.5 turbo has 2 cams, 4 pistons, 16 valves, all the fuel line equipment, and a turbo. In its simplest form, the 2.0 is the same as the 1.5 but the pistons themselves are larger. Aside from the tranny, and larger combustion chambers, the license to charge a ridiculous amount more to have access to the 2.0 vs. the 1.5, that is classic GM. The only reason the 1.5 exists in the normal world is CAFE pressures. God forbid if you want a moonroof. GM's tactic with AWD has always been to jack up the access cost of it until you break and get into their larger SUV's and pickups. That's the way they guarantee a continual stream of pickup buyers and such. It's also why the Lambdas sell like they do. You didn't have an Envision to pick from, so you automatically need an Enclave. Chevy i can bet never wanted the Trax here.....but the moment wind is out on the HRV, CX3, Renegades, etc......then we mysteriously all of a sudden get a Trax. GM management should be on board doing what everyone else is doing. Platform sharing, etc. Current Passats and Altimas are the weight that Chevy will be getting down to, so basically GM is merely playing catch up.

currently. add Envision, and then whatever other near future models will come in from overseas. At least we don't have any Mexican Buicks yet

I remember the debates on this very forum board about whether luxury sedans needed AWD. I remember specifically myself posting data about Infiniti and what happened when they added AWD. I remember specifically those that said Cadillac did not need AWD. Now everyone has them. I remember in my sales gig, the reasons why people came in to look at the Kizashis and why they generated their interest. It was specifically due to all wheel drive, in the sedan segment, at the same prices as Subaru. The AWD + price + sedan combo is what brought the traffic. The customer still had the choice to back down to FWD and less price / better mpg but AWD sales were more than FWD sales. The base S model AWD was the most popular trim level next to the fully loaded SLS AWD. It was evident to me from people's request and purchases that the segment desired more options to compare with the Subaru. The failure of the brand was marketing based, not product based. Mitsubishi sells a basic Lancer AWD for crying out loud; a buddy has one. AWD does not need to be reserved for the highest priced brands and for crossovers only. I bet the Chrysler 200 has a pretty large AWD take rate. I believe Hyundai and Kia may seek to fill that competition soon as well. Crossovers share platforms with cars now, so the offering should be seamless. In the Malibu's case, they will claim their new Malibu platform is engineered to cut mass and only be compatible with fwd and four cylinder engines. It will be interesting to see if the bull$h! is exposed when the new Regal (which is likely the exact same platform) offers the AWD option. Then we'll know the stench of the BS. It will just be that the AWD is reserved for Buick so they can extract thousands more from the customer.